More on Chivalry
By Holly Combe | 13 March 2008, 15:20
Do we need signs telling us to give up our seats on the tube for those who might need them more? Apparently, Ken Livingstone thinks so because he has launched a priority seating scheme that includes pregnant women. While I can appreciate some of the reasons why Livingstone thinks this might be necessary (i.e the tube isn’t exactly a hotbed of care and consideration for others), there also seems to be a rather discomforting whiff of chivalry present in some of the rhetoric surrounding the move.
I elaborated on this point when I took part in a debate on the Richard Bacon show last Thursday. You can still catch this debate online (about an hour and a half into the programme) if you go to the radio 5 website today.
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Laura said:
Am confused - I don't go to London that often, but was sure there were already stickers asking you to give up your seat? Or is the news just that they now include pregnant women?
I'm not sure there's a chivalry problem, if you mean that as crypto-male chauvinism. Visibly pregnant women *are* encumbered and under considerable physical strain (I don't think it's disrespectful to acknowledge that!), and while I guess there's a problem of people perceiving them as 'weak', I'm also quite pleased that people are being encouraged to be more considerate in the same way as they are to passengers with other mobility issues.
Posted on 13 March 2008 at 4:04 PM
fliss said:
Yeah I agree with Laura, think giving up your seat to a pregnant woman is just being polite rather than being patronising!
Posted on 13 March 2008 at 7:14 PM
Redheadinred said:
I agree too, giving up your seat to a pregnant woman is just being polite. I'm sure most of them would like to sit down. I don't see it as patronising.
Posted on 13 March 2008 at 9:21 PM
Hannah said:
Richard Bacon seemed to struggle to understand what I thought was a very simple point at one point there, although overall it seemed to go well. The other guest seemed very reasonable for someone who's written a book on chivalry.
Posted on 13 March 2008 at 11:03 PM
Tazia said:
Polite is just custom, as is secular or modern chivalry, the religious version, blessing of sword on altar, truce of God, orphans, widows protected from mayhem,
I think "Benedictio novi militis." was the first time since the Roman era that soldiers became respectable. In fact,
in the late Roman period in the west they were also hated, that aversion essentially continued to the crusades.
Chivalry is a boy-word for doing the right thing in the right circumstances. It's as patriarchal as the pigeon splattered statues of yesterday's war-mongering classes in the park.
To each calling there is a custom. If one is lining up for a life-boat, that's probably not the time to make a big issue out of it.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 6:21 AM
Ceec said:
Holly - I can't listen to the programme. Can you summarise your point here? I'm interested to know what you think.
As a 5-month pregnant woman, I can confirm that it is definitely very hard to stand on the tube at the moment but I'm too embarrassed to ask for a seat and don't look very pregnant yet so nobody offers either. I always previously gave up my seat for pregnant women, old people, people with children, masses of shopping etc. which seemed to me to be courteous more than anything else.
I assume your point is more to do with the instructions to do so than the act of doing it?
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 9:05 AM
Laura Woodhouse said:
I don't think giving up your seat for a pregnant woman has anything to do with chivalry, as long as it is all travellers who are encouraged to do so and not just men.
In response to Tazia - something being a custom does not make it OK. Chivalry is based on the idea that we should treat people differently because of their sex - bad enough already - and, even worse, specifically treat women differently because they are perceived to be weaker and inferior. That probably isn't what the chivalrous man is conscisouly thinking, but the act of opening a door, pulling out a chair or giving up a seat simply because the intended recipient of the action is a woman presumes this weakness and/or inferiority. It's got to go.
Politeness and common courtesy, on the other hand, involves being helpful/nice to people regardless of sex, or any other characteristic.
Posted on March 14, 2008 10:13 AM
Liz A said:
I'm unable to access the Bacon show as well, which perhaps would explain what I'm missing.
But it seems to me that if it does really need pointing out to people that they ought to give up their seats (and sadly it does), it's not patronising to include pregnant women in the group of those for whom seats should be given up for.
I never was more tired and unco-ordinated than when I was pregnant.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 10:20 AM
Cara said:
Holly: I caught the debate, well done. I don't know why Richard Bacon seemed not to get a very simple point either. He seemed genuinely confused by your simple point that politeness should be extended to everyone, and not on the basis of gender...as for the stupid crack about "if men could get pregnant I'd offer them seats too"...*rolls eyes*. It's about seeing women as human beings!
The point is, as others have said, that people should be polite to *all* other people and not just because that person is female.
The campaign doesn't only target men - it says that everyone should give up their seat to a pregnant woman. However, the "respect to which they are entitled" bit does not sit well with me...seems to tap into the "having babies is the most sacred calling of a woman" type crap.
I give up my seat to anyone who looks like they need it...looks ill, injured, disabled, with lots of bags, elderly etc. as I am a healthy young woman. Unless I am feeling exhausted or unwell or have luggage myself.
I commute and have been offered seats on the train...purely because I am female...often by middle-aged businessmen who probably need it more than I do! What bugs me is to be offered as if I am weaker/ fragile because I am a woman! Also, if I politely say No thanks, they try to insist and get very huffy if I continue to politely refuse. What bit of "No thanks, I'm fine standing" don't they get?! Yet if you get into "just because I'm female doesn't mean I can't stand up" debate they think you're an Angry Feminist (TM) and I can't be arsed with that, especially not before I've had coffee.
Oh and the lingering "did they think I'm pregnant omg I'm FAT" paranoia...
Of course, when I had injured my knee and *really* needed a seat I was never offered one, despite being pretty obviously in pain! People in London often are oblivious to others around them. It's just that I feel "chivalry" is often patronising, a way of exerting power over females and saying "we men own this space really, but we are going to graciously let you sit here because you are weak and inferior" / a way of chatting up attractive young women (how many ugly or middle-aged women get offered seats?!)
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 11:41 AM
sian said:
what IS patronising are those awful fliers that came out a few years ago giving women advise on how to use the tube! bullet points were done in lipsticks, it said to be careful getting out the tube in your "party shoes" and said that as ladies were easily made faint, they should always carry a high energy muesli bar in their handbags in case they needed one.
im assuming it has been rid off, seeing as it was the most sexist piece of public use literature in the world!
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 1:25 PM
Holly Combe said:
Thanks Cara (and, indeed, everyone else!). As you say, the point I wanted to make was simply that care and attention should be taken for everyone, not just certain groups (who I might add have a hard enough time being recognised as equal anyway). Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that a pregnant woman should be offered a priority seat but, as I said, I would also expect to offer my seat to, say, a man who looks like he may be feeling unwell! In my opinion, it would be very hard to put across such nuances in an already rather convoluted instruction.
Another thing that concerned me was the comment from Liz Back, the general Manager of the Metropolitan line:
"Many pregnant women are often reluctant to ask someone to give up their seat, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. The aim is to help make it easier for pregnant women to get a seat on the Tube at a time when they need it without the embarrassment of needing to ask someone to give up their seat. The onus is now on customers to keep an eye out for anyone in their carriage who might have a greater need for a seat."
Is Liz Back assuming that vast numbers of women in the early stages of pregnancy are going to obtain and wear the badges given away during the Baby on Board campaign? if not, what exactly is she suggesting? That every woman of child bearing age ought to be offered a seat on the grounds that she might be pregnant? That would be terrible! Perhaps the fact that pregnant women feel uncomfortable about *actively* asking for a seat is an indication of just how messed up chivalry has made us all... the hangover of a custom that encouraged men to always take charge.
If Ken Livingstone thinks we need a sign to tell us to be considerate towards others, I think he ought to be more specific about *why* pregnant women need a seat. As Ceec and Liz A have experienced, one *is* encumbered while pregnant (whether from morning sickness in the early stages or the heavy weight carried in the latter ones) so why not mention that rather than bandying about woolly -and potentially gallant- statements about pregnant women deserving "respect"?
Posted on March 14, 2008 2:32 PM
Ceec said:
Holly - thanks for explaining your point. I agree.
It brings up a bit of a paradox too - I'd also rather people offered to help (unpregnant) me than totally ignore me, even if I am capable of doing it myself. I suppose it could be construed as patronising and maybe it is but it still makes the world a marginally less awful place to be when people show concern and willingness to make your life easier.
I can see the general point about reinforcing constructions of women as hopeless and helpless, but I have male friends who have said they worry about causing offence with offers of help, which seems a shame. I think as a woman I have more freedom to offer help without it being misconstrued, which in itself is rather unfair.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 3:29 PM
Helen G said:
The Transport for London website suggests that the campaign is quite wide-ranging in its pursuit of consideration for one's fellow travellers.
Click here for the relevant page on the TfL website - assuming, of course, that it's not been delayed by a signal failure at Farringdon or something... ^_^
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 3:44 PM
Holly Combe said:
Hi Ceec- While I can appreciate that there will be some situations where a woman offering help will not be misconstrued (and that this can create something of a dilemma for the genuinely helpful man with no agenda), I would also say that there are others where we really aren't so free at all. For example, there have been many occasions where I have reached a door before a man and held it open, only for him to look slightly offended and refuse to go through, insisting "after you!" I then either have to sheepishly accept his demand and let go of the door for him or stand my ground so we can have a big Door-Off!
Posted on March 14, 2008 3:53 PM
Holly Combe said:
Laura- sorry I missed your question. Yes, the news is that the stickers will now also include pregnant women.
Posted on March 14, 2008 4:05 PM
Ceec said:
Ah yes - I should clarify that I didn't mean I had total freedom, just more freedom. I do recognise the "door off" scenario!
Also, I have had slightly alarmed responses from older men when I have offered them my seat which made me feel bad about making them feel old, less macho or whatever. I didn't mean to imply that these things are value free ever - just hypothesising (and I may be wrong, obviously) that as a woman you are more likely to be thought a nice person if you offer help, and less likely to be thought patronising than a man in a similar position.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 4:11 PM
Holly Combe said:
Thanks for the link, Helen. I've had a quick skim through and, though I find the pictures a bit cutesy, it looks reasonable. The original press release about the stickers still concerns me though and it does all seem rather convoluted. IMO, we wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for the old ideas about chivalry getting in the way of basic good manners!
Posted on March 14, 2008 4:18 PM
Holly Combe said:
Yes, I think that's true, Ceec.
However, I don't think you should worry about making a man feel less macho! I reckon it goes without saying that we should *always* treat a man with the same respect we expect for ourselves but I'd say the macho thing falls well beyond that particular call of duty. (I only want to be fair to men so if a guy thinks I'm guilty of undermining his sense of machismo I say "tough.")
Posted on March 14, 2008 4:34 PM
Kimberley said:
Ever seen the priority seating signs in the Paris metro? They're pretty funny. The long list starts with disabled war veterans and ends at around item 7 with the elderly.
IME, the Parisians are much better at offering seats. OTOH, they also have more room to do so.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 5:56 PM
Tazia said:
In France it is not how disabled you are but, how you got disabled, I think people with acute learning diabilities come last. A factory accient trumps the big with child phenomena.
Posted on 14 March 2008 at 10:57 PM
Genevieve said:
My grandma always tells the story of being eight months pregnant with my dad while on the Rapid train (a light rail line in northeast Ohio). Every seat was filled with businessmen, and none of them would move, so she rode all the way from Shaker Heights to downtown Cleveland (at least 20 minutes, if you're lucky, and it was probably even longer back in the 50s) standing up. And the fifties were supposed to be the ideal time for chivalrous men in America, eh?
Posted on 15 March 2008 at 3:19 AM